a>- 


^■f. 


me  EPISTLES  OF  CICERO 


^iniot^ 


Bibliography  and  Hints  for  Study 


By   EMIL   HUBNER 

Professor  in  the  University  of  Berlin 
Examiner  in  Latin,  Johns  Hopkins  University 


•r 


:>■:/.   '■^' 


^■^ 


}^ 


t.v 


BALTIMORE 

PUBLICATIOM  AOENCT  Or  THK  JOKNS  HOPKIBS  TJNIVEBSITY 

November,  1888 


3^ 


>v.i 


»*% 


-i. 


COPTBIOHT,  1888,  BY  N.  MURRAY. 


JOHN   MCRPHY  .Ik  CO.,  PRINTERS, 
BALTIHORK. 


THE  EPISTLES  OF  CICERO. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  AND   HINTS   FOR   STUDY. 


Compare  Hubner,  Grundriss  *  (1878),  p.  91  ff. 

Teuffel,  Romische  Litteraturgeschichte  *  (1882),  p.  322  ff. 

R.  Sehirmer,  Jahresbericht  (since  1829),  Philologus,  xlv,  1886,  p. 

133  ff. 
J.  H.  Sehmalz,  Jahresbericht  (1881-84),  Bursian's  Jahresbericht, 

xxxix,  1884,  p.  34  ff. 
C.  Lehmann,  Zeitschrift  ftir  Gymnasialwesen,  1884,  Jahresberichte, 
p.  1  ff.,  and  1888,  p.  253  ff. 
Eklitions  of  Orelli-Baiter,  Baiter-Kayser,  Siipfle-Bockel,  Hofmann  Andre- 
sen,  Frey,  Wesenberg,  Boot  *  (1886),  Frontin  (1881),  Tyrrell  (1885-86). 

A  good  deal  has  been  done  in  the  way  of  close  examination  of  the  Epis- 
tles of  Cicero  and  his  correspondents — though  the  subject  is  far  from  being 
exhausted  (the  special  literature  since  1878  has  been  appended  to  the  fol- 
lowing paragraphs) — but  the  general  questions  about  epistolography,  Greek 
and  Roman,  its  origin  and  peculiarities,  its  development  in  prose  and  poetry, 
have  thus  far  been  only  perfunctorily  treated. 

Origin  of  epistolography  in  the  schools  of  the  philosophers  (Isocrates, 
Epicurus). 
Its  relation  to  and  difference  from  KSyoi  and  8«£\o7o«. 
Different  ways  of  adaptation  of  the  Greek  models  in  Rome  (Sp.  Mum- 
ftiius,  Varro's  logistorici,  Horace). 

Combination  of  the  natural  and  the  artificial  epistolary  style. 

Extent  and  variety  of  Cicero's  epistolary  work. 

His  followers  and  imitators  (Pliny,  Apollinaris  Sidonius). 

Criticism  in  General. 

F.  Bueheler,  zur  Kritik  der  ciceronischen  Briefe,  Rhein.  Mus.,  xi,  1857,  p. 

509  ff. 
The  same,  coniectanea,  Rhein.  Mus.,  xxxiv,  1879,  p.  352  ff. 

3 


m 


4  The  JElpistks  of  doero. 

W.  O.  Pluygers,   Mnemosyne,  xi,  1862,  p.  296  ff.,  ad  C.  epistolas,  New 

Series,  ix,  1881,  p.  113  ff. 
J.  N.  Madvig,  adversaria  critica,  vol.  II,  1873,  p.  232  ff.,  vol.  Ill,  1884,  p. 

lS5ff 
H.  Sehwarz,  miscellanea  philologica,  Leipzig  (Tiibingen),  1878  (pp.  47),  8. 
Sietbye,  opuscula  philologica  ad  Madvigium,  p.  234  ff. 
The  same,  det  philologisk-historisk  samfunds  mindeskrift,  Eopenhagen, 

1878,  8. 
A.  Goldbaeher,  C.  ad  Att.,  iii,  2,  Zeitschrift  fiir  die  osterreichischen  Gymna- 

sien,  1878,  p.  335. 
The  same,  Wiener  Studien  fur  class.  Philologie,  II,  1880,  p.  300  f. 
M.  Oillbaua;Wiener  Studien,  I,  1879,  p.  75  ff.,  246  ff. 
C  O.  Cobet,  de  locis  quibusdam  in  C.'s  epistolis  ad  familiares  et  ad  Atticum, 

Mnemosyne,  viii,  1880,  p.  182  f. 
/.  O.  Bool,  observationes  criticae  ad  M.  T.  C.  epistolas,  Amsterdam,  1880 

(2-67  pp.),  4. 
C.  A.  Lehmann,  quaestiones  TuUianae,  Hermes,  xv,  1880,  p.  352  ff. 

[Wolfflin's  Archiv,  III,  1880,  p.  570.] 
The  same,  quaestiones  Tullianae,  I,  de  C.  epistulis,  Leipzig,  1886  (viii,  136 
pp.),  8. 

ITh.  Stangl,  Deutsche  Litteratur-Zeitung,  1886,  p.  368.    J.  H.  Sehmak, 
Berliner  Philol.  Woohenschrift,  vi,  1886,  p.  913  f,    L.  OurliU,  ibid., 
p.  918  f.] 
S.  Brandt,  zu  C.  ad  Att.,  Khein.  Mus.,  ixxvi,  1881,  p.  630  f. 
K.  Sehirmer,  C.  ad  Att.,  I,  19,  Philologus,  xl,  1881,  p.  387. 
Ch.  Nisard,  notes  zur  les  lettres  de  C,  Paris,  1882  (II,  240  pp.),  8. 

[C.  JvUien,  Revue  Arch^ologique,  xv,  1883,  p.  281  f.     C.  Lthman%j 
Philol.  Wochenschrift,  III,  1883,  p.  1159.] 
A.  Palmer,  Cic.  ad  Att.,  xii,  18  and  48,  Journal  of  Philology,  xi,  1882,  p.  242. 
P.  Starker,  symbolae  criticae  ad  C.  epistolas,  Breslau  (Neisse),  1883  (47 
pp.),  8. 

[J.  H.  Sehmah,  Philol.  Wochenschrift,  III,  1883,  p.  619.    F.  Beeher, 
Philol.  Rundschau,  III,  1883,  p.  1356.] 
J.  N.  Madvig,  adversaria  critica.  Vol.  Ill,  1884,  p.  155  ff. 
On  C.'s  letters,  Hermathena,  1884,  No.  10. 

A.  Otto,  zu  den  Briefen  C.'s  ad  Atticum,  Rhein.  Mus.,  xli,  1886,  p.  364  ff. 

I.     The  Original  Collections. 

B.  F.  Leighton,  historia  critica  M.  T.  C.  epistolarum  ad  familiares,  Leipzig, 
1877  (44  pp.),  8. 

[F.  Eiihl,  Centralblatt,  1877,  p.  1477.] 
L.  OurliU,  de  M.  T.  C.  epistolis  eorumqiie  pristina  coUectione,  Qottingen, 
1879  (47  pp.),  8. 

[JT.  Sehirmer,  Philol.  Anzeiger,  xi,  1881,  p.  626  f.] 


The  Epistles  of  Cicero.  5 

The  game,  der  Briefwechsel  zwischen  C.  und  D.  Brutus,  Jahrbiicher  fiir  class. 

Philologie,  1880,  p.  609  ff. 

[K.  SchirvMT,  Phil.  An*.,  xi,  1881,  p.  525  f.] 
The  game,  gab  es  im  Alterthum  eine  Sammlung  der  epistolae  Cic.  ad  Pom- 

peium?  Berl.  Philol.  Wochenschrift,  vii,  1887,  p.  891  ff. 
The  tame,  Nonius  Marcellus  und  die  Cicerobriefe,  Steglitz  (Berlin),  1888, 

(24  pp.),  4. 

What  can  be  learned  about  the  original  collections  from  the  present 
condition  of  the  four  extant  collections? 

II.     The  Manrueriptt. 

F.  Buhl,  zur  Handschriftenkunde  von  C.'s  Briefen,  Rhein.  Mus.,  xxx,  1875, 
p.  26  ff. 

The  same,  iiber  den  Codex  Laudensis  53,  35  nebst  Nachtragen  zu  den  neu- 
sten  Forschungen  fiber  C.'s  Briefe,  Rhein.  Mus.,  xxxvi,  1881,  p.  11  ff. 

The  same,  Jahrbucher  fur  class.  Philologie,  1883,  p.  750. 

A.  Horlit,  M.  T.  C.  nelle  opere  del  Petrarca  e  del  Boccaccio  .  .  .  ,  cou 
lettere  inedite  di  Matteo  d'Orgiano  e  di  Coluccio  Salutati  a  Pasquino  de 
Capellis,  Triest,  1878  (102  pp.)  8. 

[V.  R{uhl),  Centralblatt,  1879,  p.  1426.] 

G.  Voigt,  fiber  die  handschriftliche  Ueberlieferung  von  C.'s  Briefen,  Berichte 
der  Sachs.  Gesellschaft  der  Wissenschaften  philol.  histor.  Classe.,  1879,  p. 
41  ff. 

[L.  Oeiger,  Gottinger  gelehrte  Anzeigen,  1879,  p.  1298  ff.    K.  Schirmer, 
Philol.  Anzeiger,  xi,  1881,  p.  522.] 
A .  Viertel,  die  Wiederauffindung  der  ciceronischen  Briefe  durch  Petrarca, 
eine  philologische  Untersuchung,  Konigsberg,  1879  (44  pp.),  4. 

IG.  Voigt,  Centralblatt,  1879,  p.  1425.    L.  Geiger,  Gottinger  gelehrte 
Anzeigen,  1879,  p.  1465  f.  K.  Schirmer,  Philol.  Anzeiger,  xi,  1881,  p. 
521.    K.  Lehmann,  Philol.  Wochenschrift,  ii,  1882,  p.  291.] 
The  same,  die  Wiederauffindung  von  C.'s  Briefen  durch  Petrarca,  Jahrbficher 

ffir  class.  Philologie,  1880,  p.  231  ff. 
The  same.  Flavins  Blondus  fiber  die  Auffindung  der  ciceron.  Briefe,  Rhein. 

Mus.,  xxxvi,  1881,  p.  150  ff. 
Fr.  Schmidt,  zu  den  Briefen  ad  Atticum,  Blatter  fur  das  bayerische  Gynina- 

sialschulwesen,  1876,  p.  235  ff. 
The  same,  zur  Kritik  und  Erklarung  von  C.'s  Briefe  an  Atticus,  Nurnberg, 
1879  (40  pp.),  4. 

IK.  Schirmer,  Philol.  Anzeiger,  xi,  1881,  p.  529  f.] 
The  same,  der  Codex  Tornesianus  der  Briefe  C.'s  ( Festschrift  ffir  Heerwagen, 
Erlangen,  1883,  8.),  p.  18  ff. 

[J.  H.  Sehmak,  Philol.  Rundschau,  iv,  1884,  p.  177.  JT.  Schirmer,  Philol. 
Anzeiger,  xiii,  1883,  p.  764  ff.] 
L.  Mendelssohn,  zur  Ueberlieferung  von  C.'s  Briefen,  Jahrbficher  fur  class. 
Philologie,  1880,  p.  803  ff;  1884,  p.  108  ff. 


6  The  EpisUes  of  Oieero. 

The  same,  zur  Geschichte  der  handscliriftlichen  Ueberlieferung  der  Briefe 

C.'s  in  Frankreich,  Rhein.  Mus.,  xxxvi,  1881,  p.  474  flF. 
The  tame,  de  C.  epistolarum  codice  Turonensi,  Melanges  Graux  (Paris,  1884), 

p.  169  ff. 
The  Bame,  Weiteres  zur  Ueberliferung  von  C.'s  Briefen,  Jahrbiicher   fiir 

class.  Pliilologie,  1884,  p.  108  f.  845  ff. 
O.  Schepas,  handschriftlicher  Fund  zu  C.'s  Briefen  an  Atticus,  Blatter  fiir  dns 

bayerische  Gymnasialschulwesen,  1883,  p.  7  ff.  111. 
0.   Slreicher,  de   C.  epistolis  ad   familiares  emendandis,  Coramentationi-s 

philologae  Jenenses,  vol.  iii,  1883,  p.  99  ff. 

[  W.  DiUenberger,  Deutsche  Litteratur-Zeitung,  1886,  p.  569.    Pttr«er, 
Hermathena,  1885,  p.  277  ff.,  1886,  p.  43  ff.] 
H.  Ebeling,  Handschriftliches  zu  C.'s  Briefen  an  Attiens,  Philologus,  xlii, 

1884,  p.  403  ff. 
O.  E.  Schmidt,  zur  Geschichte  der  Florentiner  Handschriflen  von  C.'s  Briefen, 

Rhein.  Mas.,  xl,  1886,  p.  611  ff. 
The  game,  die  handschriftliche  Ueberlieferung  der  Briefe  C.'s  an  Atticus, 

Q.  Cicero,  M.  Brutus  in  Italien  ( Abhandlungen  der  Sachs.  Gesellschaft  der 

Wissenschaften,  Bd.  x),  Leipzig,  1887  (107  pp.),  4. 

IF.  R(m),  Centralblatt,  1887,  p.  1769  ff.     Th.  Stangl,  Deutsche  Litter- 
atur-Zeitung, 1887,  p.  1141.] 

Before  L.  Mendelssohn's  edition  with  the  critical  apparatus  is  published, 
no  final  judgment  can  be  given.     Nevertlieless : 

What  is  the  value  of  the  Mediceus  of  the  Epistles  ad  Auicum  in  com- 
parison with  the  other  manuscripts  ? 

What  is  the  value  of  the  Vercellensis  of  the  Epistles  ad  familiares  in 
comparison  with  the  other  manuscripts  7 

IIL     The  contents  of  the  four  collections. 
The  chronoloffy. 
C.  Bardt,  quaestiones  TulHanae,  Berlin,  1866  (46  pp.),  8. 
B.  Nake,  der  Briefwechsel  zwischen  Cicero  u.  Decimus  Brutus,  Jahrbiicher 
fiir  class.  Philologie,  Supplementband  viii,  1875-76,  p.  647  ff. 
\_K.  Sehirmer,  Philol.  Anzeij^er,  xi,  1881,  p.  525.] 
0.  E.  Schmidt,  de  epistolis  et  a  Cussio  et  ad  Cussium  post  Caesarem  occisum 
datis  quaestiones  chronologicae,  Leipzig,  1877  (57  pp.),  8. 
[^K.  (SfcAirmer,  Philol.  Anzeiger,  xi,  1881,  p.  525  f.] 
The  same,  zur  Chronologie  der  Correspondenz  C.'s  seit  Caesars  Tod,  Jahr- 
biicher (iir  class.  Philol.,  1884,  p.  331  ff.    Compare  also  Jahrbiicher,  1883, 
p.  863  f. 
The  same,  die  letzten  Kiimpfe  der  romischen  Republik,  historische  Studien  I 
(Jahrbiicher  fiir   class.   Philologie,   Supplementband   xiii,   p.   665  ff.), 
Leipzig,  1884  (iii,  62  pp.),  8. 

[F.  It{uhl),  Centralblatt,  1886,  p.  227.] 


The  Epistles  of  daero.  7 

Th.  Sehiehe,  zu  C.'s  Briefen  an  Atticas,  I,  Festschrift  des  Werderschen  Gym- 

nasiuins  (Berlin,  1881,  8.),  P-  225  if. 
The  aame,  zu  C.'s  Briefen  an  Atticus,  II,  Programm  des  Werderschen  Gymna- 
siums, Berlin,  1883  (24  pp.),  4. 
The  tame,  zu  Cs  Briefen  an  Atticus,  Hermes,  xviii,  1883,  p.  588  ff. 

[J.  F.,  Philol.  Rundschau,  ii,  1882,  p.  1300  f.] 
L.  Molt,  de  temporibus  epbtolarum  TuUianarum  quaestiones  selectae,  Ber- 
lin, 1883  (49  pp.),  8. 

IE.  Euete,  Philol.  Rundschau,  III,  1883,  p.  1222  ff] 
E.  Ruete,  die  Correspondenz  C.'s  in  der  Jahren  44-43,  Strassborg  (Marburg), 
1883  (122  pp.),  8. 

IH.  SehiUer,  Bursian's  Jahresbericht,  xxxvi,  1883,  p.  496.    P.  Meyer, 
Philol.  Wochenschrift,  iii,  1883,  p.  1313  f.    L.  Gurlilt,  Philol.  Rund- 
schau, iii,  1883,  p.  712  f.] 
E.  Stemkopf,  quaestiones  chronologicae,  de  rebus  a  Cicerone  inde  a  tradita 
provincia  Cilicia  usque  ad  relictam  Italiam  gestis  deque  epistolis  intra 
illud  tempus  (a.  701  ad  705),  datis  acceptisve,  Marburg,  1884  (70  pp.),  8. 
A.  E.  Koemer,  de  epistolis  a  Cicerone  post  reditum  ad  finem  a.  700  datis 
quaestiones  chronologicae,  Leipzig  (Meissen),  1885  (67  pp.),  8. 

[0.  E.  Ekhter,  Wochenschrift  fur  klass.  Philologie,  ii,  1885,  p.  1609 
f.    L.  Qurlitt,  Berliner  Philol.  Wochenschrift,  vi,  1886,  p.  1369  f. 
Sl{ei-nkopf),  Neue  Philol.  Rundschau,  vii,  1887,  p.  8.] 
W.  JudeuJi,  Caesar  im  Orient,  kritische  Uebersicht  der  &eig^i8se  vom  9 
Aug.  48  bis  Oct.  47,  Leipzig,  1885  (viii,  205  pp.),  8. 

[E.  Klebt,  Deutsche  Litteratur-Zeitung,  1885,  p.  1009.    Centralblatt, 
1886,  p.  978.     O.  Thourel,  Wochenschrift  fur  klass.  Philologie,  II, 
1885,  p.  1547  f.     R.  Schneider,  Berliner  Philol.  Wochenschrift,  v, 
1885,  p.  748.] 
O.  Rauschen,  ephemerides  Tullianae  rerum  inde  ab  exilio  Ciceronis  {Marl. 
Iviii,  a.  Chr.)  usque  ad  extremum  annum  LIV  gestarum,  Bonn,  1886 
(64  pp.),  8. 
[a  E.  Schmidt,  Wochenschrift  fiir  klass.  Philologie,  v,  1888,  p.  427.] 
J.  Ziehen,  ephemerides  Tullianae  rerum  inde  a  xvii  mensis  Martis  49  a. 
Chr.  usque  ad  ix  mensis  August!  48  a.  Chr.  gestarum,  Bonn  (Budapest), 
1887  (58  pp.),  8. 
K.  Lehmann,  [on  Boot's  second  edition]  Wochenschrift  fiir  klass.  Philologie, 

iii,  1886,  p.  935  ff.,  970  ff 
The  gam«,  zur  Recension  der  Atticusbriefe  Cicero's,  Wochenschrift  fiir  klass. 
Philologie,  iv,  1887,  p.  506  ff.,  1403  ff. 

The  commentary  of  Manutius,  Drumann's  work,  Orelli's  Onoroasticon 
always  to  be  consulted.  See  also  Plutarque,  vie  de  Cic^ron,  par  Ch.  Graux, 
Paris,  1882  (192  pp.),  8. 

The  chronology  of  the  letters  written  before  C.'s  Cilician  proconsulate  has 
not  yet  been  sufficiently  examined. 

Are  there  pseudonyms  among  C.'s  correspondents?    (Cf.  Sampsiceranius). 


8  The  Epistles  of  Cicero. 

The  official  documents  in  the  letters  are  to  be  examined. 
Data  as  to  C.'s  literary  occupations,  his  library,  his  orations,  his  rhe- 
torical and  philosophical  writings.     Cf.  the  question  about  the  Topica, 
M.  Wc^ies,  de  fontibus  topicorum  Ciceronis,  Halle,  1878  (48  pp.),  8. 

[Iwan  MutUr,  Bursian's  Jahresbericht  xiv,  1878,  p.  200.    C.  H.,  Philol. 
Anzeiger,  ix,  1878,  p.  658.] 

IV.     The  Language  of  the  EpUtles. 

Cf.  H.  Merguet,  Lexicon  zu  C.'s  Reden,  4  volL,  Jena,  1881-86,  4. 

The  same,  Lexicon  zu  den  philosophischen  Schriften  C.'s,  vol.  I,  Part  I, 

Jena,  1887  ff,  4. 
[Compare  also  the  general  and  monographic  literature  on  the  language 
of  Cicero.] 
A.  Stinner,  de  eo  quo  C.  in  epistolb  usus  sit  sermone  I-III  (1849-1864), 
Oppeln,  1879  (72  pp.),  8. 

[JT.  E.  Georges,  Bursian's  Jahresbericht,  xxiii,  1880,  p.  415  f.] 
H.  HeUrmUh,  de  sermonis  proprietatibus  quae  in  prioribus  Ciceronis  oratio- 
nibus  inveniuntur.    Acta  seminarii  philol.  Eriangensis,  vol.  I  (£rlangen, 
1878,  8.),  p.  101  ff. 

[E.  Ludmg,  Bursian's  Jahresbericht,  x,  1877,  p.  88  ff.] 
Ph.  Thielmann,  de  sermonis  proprietatibus  quae  leguntur  apud  Comificium 
et  in  primis  Ciceronis  libris  (  Dissertationes  philol.  Argentoratenses,  vol. 
II),  Strassburg,  1879  (113  pp.),  8. 
The  same,  stilistische  Bemerkungen  zu  den  Jugendwerken  Ciceros,  Blatter 
fiir  das  bayerische  Gymnasialschulwesen,  1880,  p.  202  ff.,  352  ff. 

[G.  Landgraf,  Zeitschrift  fiir  das  Gymnasialwesen,  1879,  p.  593  ff.     E. 
W.,  Philol.  Anzeiger,  x,  1879-80,  p.  51  ff.] 
The  same,  Bemerkungen  zum  sermo  cotidianus  in  den  Briefen  Ciceros  und 
an  Cicero,  Blatter  fiir  das  bayerische  Gymnasialschulwesen,  1880,  p.  275 
ff.,  317  ff. 
O.  Landgraf,  de  Ciceronis  elocutione  in  orationibus  pro  P.  Quinctio  et  pro 
Sex.  Koscio  Amerino  conspicua,  Wiirzburg,  1878  (51  pp.),  8. 

IE.  Wolfflin,  Jahrbiicher  fur  class.  Philologie,  1878,  p.  481  ff.    Itvan 
Mailer,  Bursian's  Jahresbericht,  xiv,  1878,  p.  201.    K.  E.  Georges, 
Bursian's  Jahresbericht,  xxiii,  1880,  p.  416.] 
/.  H.  Sehmalz,  1881-82,  v.  infra  No.  vi. 

Aem.  Zimmermann,  de  epistulari  temporum  usu  Ciceroniano  quaestiones 
grammaticae,  Bastenburg,  1886  (25  pp.),  4. 
[  Wolfflin's  Archiv,  III,  1886,  p.  569.] 
P.  Meyer,  de  Ciceronis  in  epistulis  ad  Atticum  sermone,  Bayreuth,  1887  (60 
pp.),  8. 

ITh.  Slangl,  Deutsche  Litteratur-Zeitung,  1887,  p.  1729.] 
See  also  Wolfflin's  Archiv,  II,  1885,  p.  1  ff.  50  ff.  157  ff.,  Ill,  1886,  p.  177  ff., 
IV,  1887,  p.  52  ff.,  etc. 


The  Ejpiitlea  of  Cicero.  9 

Use  of  tenses  and  modes. 

The  relative  constructions. 

Tiie  particMles  (different  ways  of  connecting  the  constructions  together). 

The  Greek  guotaiiona,  and  uteof  the  Cheek  kmgiutge  in  general. 
B.  Miieke,  de  locis  aliquot  Qraecis,  qui  insunt  in  Ciceronis  ad  Atticum  epis- 

tulis  commentatio,  Ilfeld  (Nordhausen),  1878  (14  pp.),  4. 
[/wan  MuUer,  Bursian's  Jahresbericht,  xiv,  1878,  p.  236  f.] 
B.  BoUzenthod,  de  Graeci  sermonis  proprietatibns  ...  in  Ciceronis  epistulis, 

Custrin,  1884  (11  pp.),  4. 

[F.  Becker,  Philol.  Eundschau,  iv,  1884,  p.  1295.] 

V.     The  EpiiUet  ad  Brulum. 

F.  Beeher,  de  Ciceronis  quae  feruntur  ad  Brntam  epistulis,  Harburg  (Jena), 
1876  (22  pp.),  4. 
[/iMtn  Mailer,  Bursian's  Jahresbericht,  x,  1877,  p.  268  ff.    K.  Sehirmer, 
Philol.  Anzeiger,  xi,  1881,  p.  528  f.] 
The  tame,  de  locis  quibusdam  (Ps.)  Ciceronis  epistularum  ad  Brutum,  Phil- 

ologus,  Supplementband  iv,  1883,  p.  502  ff. 
The  tame,  die  sprachliche  Eigenart  der  Briefe  ad  Brutum,  Philologus,  xlv, 
1886,  p.  471  ff. 

B.  Heine,  quaestionum  de  M.  T.  C.  et  M.  Bruti  epistolis  mutuis  capita  duo, 
Leipzig,  1876  (42  pp.),  8. 

C.  O.  Cobet,  ad  epistolas  Ciceronis  et  M.  Bruti,  Mnemosyne,  vii,  1879,  p. 
262  ff. 

P.  Jlfeyer,Untersuchung  iiber  die  Frage  der  Echtheit  des  Briefwechsels  Cicero 
ad  Brutum  sowohl  vom  historischen  als  vom  sprachlichen  Gesichtspunkt 
aus,  Zurich  (Stuttgart),  1881  (viii,  210  pp.),  8. 

[<?.  Andreeen,  Deutsche  Litteratur-Zeitung,  1881,  p.  1615.    .  .  r  . .  . , 

Philol.  Wochenschrift,  ii,  1882,  p.  1169.    F.  Basher,  Philol.  Anzeiger, 

xii,  1882,  p.  102  ff.    Wdlfflin's  Archiv,  IV,  1887,  p.  634.] 

L.  Gurlitt,  die  Briefe  Cs  an  Brutus  in  Bezug  auf  ihre  Echtheit  gepriift, 

(Philologus,  Supplementband  iv,  p.  651  ff.),  Gottingen,  1883  (78  pp.),  8. 

[J.  H.  Sehmalz,  Berliner  Philol.  Wochenschrift,  iv,  1884,  p.  389.    E. 

RueU,  Philol.  Rundschau,  iv,  1884,  p.  692  ff.] 

The  tame,  der  Archetypus  der  Brutusbriefe,  Jahrbiicher  fur  class.  Philologie, 

1885,  p.  561  ff.    Compare  ibid.,  p.  855  f. 
The  tame,  drei   Suasorien   in   Briefform   (Cicero's  ep.  ad  Brutum,  i,  15, 

{  3-11,  16, 17),  Philologus,  Supplementband  v,  1886,  p.  591  ff. 
O.  E.  Schmidt,  zu  Ciceros  Briefwechsel  mit  M.  Brutus,  Jahrbiicher  fiir  class. 
Philologie,  1884,  pp.  127  ff.,  559  ff. ;  zur  Kritik  und  Erklarung  der  Briefe 
Ciceros  an  M.  Brutus  ibid.  p.  617  ff. 
IF.  Beeher,  Philol.  Anzeiger,  xiv,  1884,  p.  315  ff.] 
K.  Sehirmer,  iiber  die  Sprache  des  M.  Brutus  in  den  bei  Cicero  iiberlieferten 
Briefen,  Metz,  1884  (26  pp.),  4. 


:;^ 


10  The  Epistles  of  Cicero. 

IH.  J.  Sehmalz,  Berliner  Philol.  Wochenschrift,  iv,  1884,  p.  1406.     0. 

E.  Schmidt,  Wochenschrift  fiir  class.  Philologie,  i,  1884,  p.  14.50  ff. 

L.  Ourliit,  Jahrbiicher  fur  cIhss.  Philologie,  1884,  p.  885  ff.     F. 

Becker,  Neue  Philol.  Rundschau,  vi,  1886,  p.  7:i.] 

J.  van  der  Vliet,  in  Ciceronis  epistolas  ad  M.  Krutum,  Jahrbiicher  fiir  class. 

Philologie,  1885,  p.  374  f. 
A.  von  Streng,  de  Ciceronis  ad  M.  Brutum  epistolarum  libro  qui  II  inscri- 

bitur,  Helsingfors,  1885  (119  pp.),  8. 
C.  Wermuth,  quaestiones  de  M.  T.  C.  epistolurum  ad  M.  Brutum  1.  IX,  Basel, 
1887  (40  pp.),  8. 
[L.  Ourlitt,  Berliner  Philol.  Wochenschrift,  vii,  1887,  p.  1066  f.] 

Are  there  any  facts  recorded  in  the  correspondence  between  C.  and  M. 
Brutus  which  cannot  be  combined  with  history? 

Is  the  language  of  both  parts  of  the  correspondence  different  from  the 
language  of  Cicero  and  that  of  his  time? 

VI.     Cicero's  other  correspondents  and  their  language. 

W.  S.  Teuffel,  zu  den  Briefen  des  Caelius,  '  Kritisches  und  Ezegetisches ' 

(Tiibingen,  1878,  4.),  p.  45. 
E.  Opitz,  quo  sermone  ei,  qui  ad  Ciceronem  litteras  dederunt,  usi  snnt, 
Naumburg  a.  d.  Saale,  1879  (20  pp.),  4. 

[JT.  Schirmer,  Philol.  Anzeiger,  xi,  1881,  p.  531  f.] 
L.  Ourlitt,  der  Briefwechsel  zwischen  Cicero  und  D.  Brutus,  Jahrbiicher 

fur  class.  Philologie,  1880,  p.  609  ff.     (Above  No.  1.) 
/.  H.  Sehmalz,  iiber  die  Latinitiit  des  Vatinius  in  den  bei  Cicero  ad  fam.,  v. 
9,  10,  erhaltenen  Briefen,  Mannheim,  1881  (24  pp.),  4. 

IK.  E.  Georges,  Philol.  Rundschau,  i,  1881,  p.  1302  f.     G.  Andresen, 
Philol.  Wochenschrift,  i,  1881,  p.  113  f.] 
The  same,  iiber  den  Sprachgebrauch  der  nichtciceronischen  Briefe  in  den 
ciceronischen   Briefsammlungen,  Zeitschrift   fiir   das   Gymnasialwesen, 
1881,  p.  87  ff. 
[K.  Schirmer,  Philol.  .\nzeiger,  xi,  1881,  p.  531  f.   K.  E.  Georges,  Philol. 
Rundschau,  i,  1881,  p.  531  f.     K.  Lehmann,  Zeitschrift  fiir  das  Gym- 
nasialwesen, 1882,  .Jahresbericht,  p.  24.] 
The  sam^,  iiber  den  Sprachgebrauch  des  .^sinius  PolHo  in  den  bei  Cicero  ad 
fam.,  X,  31-35,  erhaltenen  Briefen  u.  s.  w..  Festschrift  fiir  die  36  Philolo- 
genversammlung  (Karlsruhe,  1882,  4.),  p.  76  ff. 

[K.  Schirmer,  Philol.  Anzeiger,  xiii,  1882,  p.  760  ff.    C.  Wagener,  Philol. 
Rundschau,  ii,  1882,  p.  1525  ff.    K.  Lehmann,  Berliner  Philol.  Woch- 
enschrift, iii,  1883,  p.  483  f.] 
0.  Hameker,  Cicero  und  die  Attiker,  Jahrbiicher  fur  class.  Philologie,  1882, 

p.  604  ff. 
Willmann,  ein  Brief  Ciceros  (ad  fam.,  v,  12,  L.  Lucceius),  Halberstadt,  1883, 
4.,  p.  7-16. 


The  Epistles  of  Cicero.  11 

E.  Sehdle,  de  M.  Antonii  triumviri  quae  superaant  epistulis  partic  prior, 
Frankenberg  i.  S^  1883  (55  pp.),  4. 

I      IH.  SehiUer,  Bursian's  Jahresbericht,  xxxvi,  1883,  p.  496.   J.  H.  Sehmalz, 
id.  xxxix,  1884,  p.  71.  '  L.  Ourlitt,  Philol.  Bundschau,  iv,  1884,  p. 
336  f.] 
H.  Wieechhodter,  de  M.  Caelio  Rufo  oratore,  Leipzig,  1885  (67  pp.),  8. 

F.  Beeher,  fiber  den  Spraehgebrauch  des  M.  CaeliuB  Bufus,  Ilfeld,  1888  (41 
pp.),  4. 

F.  Burg,  de  M.  Caelii  Eufi  genere  dicendi,  Freiburg  (Leipzig),  1888  (78 
pp.),  8. 

[On  Beeher  and  Burg,  H.  HeUmuth,  Wolfflin's  Archiv,  V,  1888,  p.  305  ff. 
F.  Beeher,  Deutsche  Litteratur-Zeitung,  1888,  p.  979.] 
The  language  of  Cicero's  correspondents  has  not  yet  been  sufficiently  com- 
pared with  tliat  of  Cornificius,  Csesar,  Yarro,  Sallustius,  Cornelius  Nepos. 

VII.     2'Ae  Epistles  ad  Quivtvm  Fratrem  and  (he  Commentarit^um 
de  petitione  amsulattis. 
Grundriss,  p.  94. 

F.  Antoine,  Ciceronis  ad  Q.  Fratrem  ep.  prima,  Paris,  1888,  xlvii,  77 
pp.,  8. 

Eussner's  dissertation  on  the  commentariolum  should  be  closely  examined. 


It  is  desirable  that  students  know  the  monographs  before  they  begin  to 
work,  in  order  to  avoid  doing  again  what  others  have  done ;  though  in  most 
cases  the  work  must  be  done  in  another  way.  Pamphlets  (dissertations  and 
fchool-progranimes)  may  be  obtained  of  Focke  or  Simmel  in  Leipzig.  In 
reading  the  monographs,  it  offers  some  advantages  to  begin  with  the  latest, 
and  then  to  work  backwards  to  the  older  ones. 

Bkblik,  September,  1888. 


:M 


sic- 


■  <f.r^:i^-m^9^[.rp,-^ 


.^•••' 


^^-,,v.- 


.^ifiiff^^  ■;««»♦■'  »'*^"'-  '•HJj'e.  '*^.' 


m 


*\V-  ••' 


;-i^; 


I 


■a 


Copies  of  this  Bibliography  will  be  sent  by  the  Publication  Agency  of  the 
Johns  Hopkins  University,  postage  paid,  on  receipt  of  the  price,  fifteen  cents 
a  copy. 


*»: 


l:t^amj. 


